Thursday thoughts (and Open Thread)

I have not spent my time wisely today, but there are some things that crossed my radar that I think you’d like:

It’s not just because Mike McDaniel was kind enough to link to me that I bring to your attention his long, thoughtful article about gun ownership. I’m suggesting that you read it because it’s wonderful. I’m studying it carefully for the next time I find myself engaged in a debate with someone fanatically and foolishly against guns.

An example of this type of person would be the Stanford Law Professor who made the oft-repeated, and invariably stupid, argument that the Founders intended gun control to be limited to weapons in existence at the time they enacted the Second Amendment. Under that rationale, of course, freedom of the press is limited to articles that are handset by printers’ devils; the only available forms of execution (which is authorized under the Constitution) are beheading, hanging, and shooting; and the only religions entitled to protection are those in existence in 1791.

It is plain as a pikestaff to anyone who is not an Ivy League academic that the Founders, who had just ended a long rebellion against their own government, intended for civilians to have access to weapons as good as their government’s weapons, just in case that government ever took a turn to tyranny. It’s ridiculous that this Stanford guy gets paid for being that stupid. Honestly! I could be that stupid for free — and if you paid me, I’d actually try to be smart.

***

I sat next to Judge Carlos Bea at a luncheon last week. Nice man. Glad to see that he stuck up for the Constitution — although, seeing as he sits on the 9th Circuit, he’s a minority. I have my doubts about therapeutic relief from gayness, but I have my doubts about lots of promises that therapy makes. The one thing that I don’t doubt is that the California legislation at issue is a form of speech and that the Ninth Circuit is squashing such speech.

Share this:

Like this:

Stanford is using a well known juxtaposition technique, where they get you to obey by changing what your authorities tell you. So if they can convince you that the FOunding Fathers say what Stanford says, they can get you to obey the Founding Fathers or justify your disobedience/hypocrisy.
The Stanford zombies themselves don’t know about the authority of the FFs, because they are going to destroy America and remake it. So that’s not a talk that’ll get very far.

Like the rebels in Iran, they will be destroyed by the Regime and Obama will cheer it on. Like AQ in Iraq, they will be funded by the American superpower, headed by Hussein.

A counter-revolutionary guard is necessary for this, because once the revolution succeeds, no one else will be allowed to change things any more.

Matt_SE

According to Ace’s article, another court has to validate the Amanda Knox decision for her to be “convicted.” So maybe it’s a moot point, but fun game:
What are the odds that Obama will extradite her to Italy in case of conviction?

I’m guessing that he wants to stay on the good side of the Italian elites more than he cares about the little guy (or gal). So I give it a 70% chance that he’ll extradite.

Writing this blog is a labor of love. However, if you'd like to donate money for my efforts, please feel free to do so: